Print

Print


Hi all

All I have to say on this is - 'do the job right, from the beginning to the
end, and do it once'.  I cannot tell you how many stupid projects I have
seen that have to be done again due to it not being done correctly from the
start.

Good luck Joel, you have your spare time cut out for you as a freebie and
please, do NOT just preserve from 'the' get go to mp3, that would make huge
hours of your time wasted.

Cheers
M :-) C

Good luck Joel

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 2/22/2013 3:44 PM, Gordon, Bruce wrote:
>
>> The difference between 10,000 hour-long cassettes (for example) captured
>> in 48 kHz / 16-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>> files is 3,218.75 GB.
>>
>> The difference in data between 10,000 hour-long cassettes captured in
>> 44.1 kHz / 24-bit files and the same cassettes captured in 48 kHz / 24-bit
>> files is 785.15625 GB. That's one hard drive's worth of difference in the
>> amount of data.
>>
>> So do we throw away 785 GB of potentially valuable data forever (because
>> it is apparently only marginally valuable) or do we save the price of
>> storage costs that continue to drop?
>>
>
> I'll go out on a limb and say that the audible difference between 44.1kHz
> sampling and 48kHz sampling is very close to zero, particularly with
> cassettes as the source. The only advantage to 48kHz is that it is the
> standard, and thus would fit into other archives digitized at that sampling
> rate.
>
> There is a downside to 48kHz (discounting the increased cost of storage,
> which is well on the way to becoming negligible): If there is any plan to
> put the material on CDs for accessibility, 48kHz files must be
> sample-rate-converted first. Sample-rate conversion is still an impwedwxr
> science; there is a collection of tests on the web:
>
> http://src.infinitewave.ca/
>
> The results suggest that some software and hardware do the job with a lot
> fewer artifacts than others. Some that do well include Audition (w. pre-
> and post-filtering, Samplitude and various Izotope products. The venerable
> Sadie does remarkably badly.
>
> Equally important: sample rate conversion (for burning CDs) takes *time*.
> When the job is 10,000 cassettes that's worth considering.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>